I no longer endorse many of my comments from more than a few years ago, and I very much no longer endorse the argumentative, aggressive tone in which many of my comments were written, including ones I still endorse the content of
bgaesop
Karma: 307
I have started a boardgame company whose first game is up on kickstarter at the moment. I’m going to bring the no-art, largely hand written copy that was made for playtesting.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/sixpencegames/the-6p-card-game-of-victorian-combat
Working with an unnamed group of x-risk-cognizant people that LW hasn’t heard of, in a way unrelated to their setting up a non-profit.
Could you tell us about them?
if the disutility of an air molecule slamming into your eye were 1 over Graham’s number, enough air pressure to kill you would have negligible disutility.
Yes, this seems like a good argument that we can’t add up disutility for things like “being bumped into by particle type X” linearly. In fact, it seems like having 1, or even (whatever large number I breathe in a day) molecules of air bumping into me is a good thing, and so we can’t just talk about things like “the disutility of being bumped into by kinds of particles”.
If your utility function ceases to correspond to utility at extreme values, isn’t it more of an approximation of utility than actual utility?
Yeah, of course. Why, do you know of some way to accurately access someone’s actually-existing Utility Function in a way that doesn’t just produce an approximation of an idealization of how ape brains work? Because me, I’m sitting over here using an ape brain to model itself, and this particular ape doesn’t even really expect to leave this planet or encounter or affect more than a few billion people, much less 3^^^3. So it’s totally fine using something accurate to a few significant figures, trying to minimize errors that would have noticeable effects on these scales.
Sure, you don’t need a model that works at the extremes—but when a model does hold for extreme values, that’s generally a good sign for the accuracy of the model.
Yes, I agree. Given that your model is failing at these extreme values and telling you to torture people instead of blink, I think that’s a bad sign for your model.
doesn’t that assign higher impact to five seconds of pain for a twenty-year old who will die at 40 than to a twenty-year old who will die at 120? Does that make sense?
Yeah, absolutely, I definitely agree with that.
That’s true. But that’s a reason to not investigate and not read this thread and not think about the subject at all, not a reason to reply in this thread that the idea is unlikely, much less to declare it unlikely.
If your reaction to reading about the truther idea is “the value of knowing the facts about this issue, whatever they are, is rather low, and it would be time consuming to learn them, so I don’t care” that is A-OK. If your reaction is “the value of knowing the facts about this issue, whatever they are, is rather low, and it would be time consuming to learn them, therefore I am not going to update whatsoever on this issue and will ignore the evidence I know is available and yet still have a strong, high-confidence belief on it” then that seems kind of silly to me.
Does that make sense? Do you agree, or not? This is not an issue I feel very strongly about, but value of information is something I’ve been thinking about more recently and so I think that hearing others’ opinions on it would be useful. At the very least, worth the time to read them :) Amusing link, by the way.
The explosives theory involves a conspiracy
So does the traditional explanation.
The explosives theory can be and is used to score political points
So is the traditional explanation. War in Iraq, anyone?
Explosive-theory advocates seem to prefer videos to text, which raises the time cost I have to pay to investigate it
This is a very silly reason to reject an idea.
I didn’t downvote you,
Thanks! I upvoted you.
but what you’re saying is essentially “if you accept our tribe is the most awesome and smartest, then it makes sense to donate to our tribal charity”. Which is something every single group would say, in slight variation.
Well yeah; that’s why you should examine the evidence and not just do what everyone else does. So let’s look at the beliefs of all the Singularitarians on LW as evidence. What would we expect to see if LW is just an arbitrary tribe that picked a random cause to glom around? I suspect we would see that not many people in the world, and particularly not high-status people and organizations, would pay attention to the Singularity. I predict that everyone on LW would donate money to SIAI and shun people who don’t donate or belittle SIAI.
Now what would we see if LW is in fact a group of high-quality rationalists and the world, in general, is too blinded by various biases to think rationally about low-probability, high-impact events? Well, most people, including high-status people (but perhaps not some academics) wouldn’t talk about it. People on LW would donate money to SIAI because they did the calculation and decided it was the highest expected value. And they would probably shun the people who disagree, because they’re still humans.
Those two situations look awfully similar to me. My point is, I certainly don’t think that you can use LW’s enthusiasm about SIAI compared to the general public as a strike against LW or SIAI.
Here’s results chart for various asteroid tracking efforts. Catalina Sky Survey seems to be doing most of the work these days, and you can probably donate to University of Arizona and have that money go to CSS somehow. I’m not really following this too closely, I’m mostly glad that some people are doing something here.
I’m not finding anything there indicating that they’re hurting for funding, but perhaps I’m missing it.
So it’s just an awfully convenient coincidence that the charity to donate to best display trial affiliations to lesswrong crowd, and the charity to donate to best save the world just happens to be the same one? What a one in a billion chance!
No, that’s not it at all. If, as people here like to believe (and may or may not be true), the LWers are very rational and good at picking things that have very high expected value as things to start or donate to, then it makes sense that one of them (Eliezer) would create an organization that would have a very high expected value to have exist (SIAI) and the rest of the people here would donate to it. If that is the case, that SIAI is the best charity to donate to in terms of expected value (which it may or may not be), then it would also be the best charity to best donate to in order to display tribal affiliations (which it definitely is). So if you accept that people on LW are more rational than average, then them donating so much to SIAI should be taken as weak evidence that SIAI is a really good charity to donate to.
you can make some real difference by supporting asteroid tracking programs.
I was under the impression that those already had sufficient resources? Could you link to some more information on this subject, please? I agree that asteroids are a more obviously important issue than the Singularity.
Exercise: Improvisatory dance. In my opinion, improvising is more useful than specific styles of dance (salsa, swing, waltz). Most people do not dance specific dances in common social interactions unless the social event is based around that dance. If you are at a club, you can pop and lock, b-boy, robot, liquid&digits, krump, while everyone around you does something else. Also, it’s easier and more obvious to be better at improvisatory dance than the people around you.
I have found that attempting to teach others to dance in literal language doesn’t work as well as using metaphorical, poetic, woo-filled language. That said, as a specific exercise: feel the energy in your torso and each of your limbs. Feel your connection to the earth beneath you-actually feel the sensation of your feet touching the ground-what parts are touching? The heel, balls, toes, pay attention to it specifically. Direct your focus and weight either towards or away from the parts of your body you find yourself noticing. Feel the energy in your limbs again, and let some of it out, to float in front of you: snap it out, or gently wave it, or pull or push or whatever your body intuits. Then move the now-floating ball of energy around, and let it move you around.
This is much easier to explain in person when you can see me doing it. I was originally inspired to dance by this TED talk by the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers, which is also where I got some of what I wrote above (the rest I got from my own experience and from the improvisation and choreography class I just took). If you enjoy this kind of dance, you will love the LXD web show
Suggested exercise: guess what time it is, then check a clock. Guess how long it’s been since you last checked the clock, ie not only “it is 4:30” but also “it is 35 minutes since I last checked the time (at 3:55)”
And here I thought using this as a pain management technique only worked because I’m masochistic! It actually is genuinely fascinating to learn this is common to people who don’t share that trait. Though, actually, come to think of it, you never explicitly said whether you do or not. If it’s not prying, are you?
I noted with satisfaction that I believe that following my “sacred beliefs” is in contradiction with following “animal urges” like enjoying myself or morality
Could you expound upon this?
I’m not saying everyone wins equally, just that everybody wins.
I really hope that this is the case, but I don’t think that it is. I think that the difference between the hypothetical socialist and libertarian are more dramatic than the difference between a Big-Ender and a Little-Ender. Consider this situation:
All of humanity consists of 100 people, starting at utility 10, and a random one of them is given this choice: either keep things the way they are (everyone has 10 utilons, total of 1000) or one person, at random, is given 990 utilons while everyone else loses 9, so one person will have 1000, and everyone else will have 1, for a total of 1099~11 per person. The expected utility of the latter option is higher than the first so every rational being must pick the latter, right? Though I’ve learned a lot since that conversation and I no longer would make the same points, I still think that an equitable distribution of utility is better than an unequal one. Many people genuinely think it is a wonderful thing to make it so that the world is highly stratified, that there are a whole lot of people who lose in order to have a few people who really, really win. There are also a whole lot of people who genuinely think it is worth sacrificing some amount of “progress” (by which I mean technological innovation, cheapness of consumer goods, whatever) in order to have people’s lives be more equitable. I lie closer to the second camp, but I haven’t pounded my tentstakes into the ground, and even if I have, I certainly haven’t laid a brick-and-mortar foundation, so I can uproot fairly quickly. I understand the logic that comes to the former conclusion; I think it just starts from different premises than the people who come to the latter (though of course there are crazies who come to both but that goes without saying). It does seem to me, however, that the two actually are fundamentally irreconcilable in very important ways. I hope I’m wrong about that, but it really seems like I’m not...
edit: Certainly arguments like “ought gay people/mixed race couples be allowed to get married” seem more like arguments about egg-peeling, and so your strategy hopefully would work there
I agree it’s annoying and probably a problem, but I think there’s still less groupthink than on most forums I’ve seen. I do agree that it can definitely be frustrating; I have a post I want to write up on the value of starting things sooner rather than later, and I was all set to start typing it up back when I had 19 karma (you need 20 to make a full post), but then I started posting in this thread, and my karma score drifted back down to a single digit. It’s doubly frustrating because I can’t tell if people legitimately think my posts there are without merit or if they’re just using it as an agree/disagree button. If they do think my posts are terrible no one has said as such.
I just remembered the obvious point that I had been forgettig this whole time. Your position seems to me to be basically the position the article we’re both commenting on is directly arguing is a silly, untenable one to take.
There is a problem with arguments of the form, “The leader of that group clearly doesn’t ‘really’ believe his own rhetoric he’s just saying that because it resonates with his followers.” This implies that their followers actually believe that stuff, otherwise there would be no point in the leaders’ saying it. But you’ve just admitted that there exist people who really believe that stuff, why is it so absurd for the leader to be one of those people?
My mistake, wedrifid is correct, I turned my thought into a sentence poorly.
You’re still self-anchoring. You observe that they want to kill people, so you try to imagine under what conditions you would be willing to kill people.
I admit to not having considered this bias on this subject. That said, I don’t think that this bias is affecting me very significantly here, and I think that because of the direction I approached my current position from: I arrived at it after moving from somewhere near where you are currently. I will consider the possibility that my position is affected by this bias, however. The manner in which I am doing so right now is to reread the wikipedia page that I just linked and follow several of the citations. It seems that the consensus is that perceived western aggression against Muslims and Islam is one of the prime motivators—which would then include what I said, and also perceived aggression against Islam specifically. So a mixture of what we’ve both been saying.
Well, near as I can tell, your model boils down to “they secretly have to same world-view as I do, and the difference in their rhetoric is because it resonates with their audience”.
I don’t think that they are attempting to inspire a proletarian revolt across nations. I don’t think that they are attempting to engage in a class struggle pitting the poor against the rich. I do think that they perceive themselves and their fellow Muslims as being the victims of exploitation by Westerners, and I think that they perceive a number of dimensions to that exploitation: military, economic, and cultural; perhaps more. Military is fairly obvious. Economic is what I was talking about, I mentioned it specifically because we were discussing the attacks on the World Trade Center. Cultural is what you are talking about. I believe that while it is an important portion of their motivation, it is not the primary piece. Unfortunately their rhetoric focuses on that issue largely (though by no means entirely) which gives an inflated view of its importance.
They observe that the Islamic world isn’t as powerful as it was in its glory days. Furthermore, the West and the United States in particular is influencing their culture in ways they don’t like. Solving this problem requires a model of how the world works. Well, the model they turn to is one based on Islam.
It might be that we are saying similar things with rather different vocabularies. When you say that the Islamic world isn’t as powerful as it was in its glory days, does that include what I talk about when I say they’re being economically exploited? For instance, instead of a wealthy semi-equitable (or perhaps merely remembered as such) Caliphate, they are frequently poor or highly segmented populations dependent on natural resource exportation? Where does reaction to the West’s military operations fit into your model? That certainly seems to be one of the motivating forces most commonly cited by terrorists themselves.
Out of curiosity, have you been downvoting me? I’ve been upvoting you. I ask because I notice that every time I post in this thread my karma goes down, and though I do realize it’s a silly thing to care about, for some reason I do. Something about human brains enjoying watching numbers go up, I suppose. It’s particularly frustrating because I am enjoying the discussion, but seeing that number going down makes me feel like my participation is unwanted (which I am assuming is not the case, but who knows, maybe it is).
Yes, definitely. I meant it that way, but what I actually wrote down is different, I’ll correct it. Thanks for saying this.
I’ve been having some sort of half-formed thoughts recently that this has brought back into my foreground that I’m curious to see other people’s thoughts on.
It seems to me that the likelihood is quite high that there are people on here who have inherently competing utility functions (these examples were chosen merely because they are fairly common, directly competing, not obviously insane sets of motivations. I intend no value judgment on either of them). Thus, making one of the people whose utility function is dramatically different from yours more rational could be an extremely counterproductive move for you to make in terms of satisfying your own utility function. Imagine a libertarian rationalist accidentally training a socialist guerilla, who goes on to be very successful at fulfilling his own utility function, and thus dramatically harmful to his teacher’s. Or perhaps more realistically, a socialist teacher trains a libertarian who goes on to found a company that does business in the Third World in a way that the teacher disapproves of.
How would we avoid this? Should we avoid this?
A few months I ago I was roundly, and rightly, rebuked for suggesting that rationality will lead you to certain political positions. On the other hand, people have also presented the idea that being rational will lead you to value various “instrumental ethics” I believe was the term? I can’t find the article right now, unfortunately. Do you (this is directed at everyone) believe that simply by making people more rational, we’ll make them more likely to do things we approve of, in the sense that they further our utility functions?
No, not the only one, but if one were to ask them why they picked the targets they did, they’d describe it religious terms (talking about infidels, jihad and the great Satan) not in Marxist terms (i.e., economic oppression).
Just as an aside, “economic oppression” isn’t a uniquely Marxist term, nor am I even aware of a specific Marxist definition of it. Are you thinking of “economic exploitation”, perhaps? The latter means the difference between the amount of wealth generated by labour and the amount that labourer is paid.
I am pretty darn thoroughly convinced (though of course I am open to changing my mind) that the idea “religion made them do it!” is overly simplistic. I used to hold the position you do, but over the course of several years of examining the issue, I have come to the conclusion that the use of religious terminology and phrasing and all the general trappings of Islam are, while perhaps truly believed, are for the most part merely a rhetorical device constructed to take maximum advantage of the society they are recruiting, living, and (typically) acting in. I’m hesitant to say this next sentence, politics being the mind killer and all that, but I shall anyways (I have noticed I am in a hole. Hypothesis: if I dig long enough I’ll get to China!). Osama bin Laden talks about “defeating the Great Satan for the glory of Allah and Mohammed (pbuh)” for the same reason George Walker Bush talked about “spreading Freedom and Democracy”: because it resonates with his intended audience, convinces them that he has similar thought-processes to them and is representative of their interests, or at the very least their team, not because he (edit: necessarily) believed that that was what he was doing.
In fact judging by the fact that most of the hijackers were from wealthy families, I’d guess they didn’t really care about the economic dimension except as part of a general attitude that our decadence is sinful and is spreading to the middle east.
Most people who have had impact in the world have come from wealthy (or at least not working-class-poor) families, including probably every Socialist Revolutionary you’ve heard of (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che, et cetera), not to mention almost every politico in general. If anything, being middle class (inasmuch as that term makes sense) makes you more likely to simultaneously see the degradation of the poor and have the education to see what (at least seem to you) like plausible explanations for it. And then if you’re an engineer or what have you, you have access to abilities that can actually do something about this (build bombs, fly planes, whatever), or the funds to support yourself while you learn them, or whatever. The point is, being middle class is not likely to make you less politically aware and active than being poor, and it is likely to increase your free time and ability to do things politically, including but not limited to committing acts of terrorism.
I stand by my advice as good advice. If you want to successfully model others’ behavior, you shouldn’t assume they see the world the same way you do.
When phrased this way it seems much more like actual advice and much less like an insult. I’m not sure how much of this is my inference and how much is your implications, but it’s kind of moot. No hard feelings are taken, hopefully none were intended. Friends? I certainly agree that I should not model their minds as being identical to mine, but given that I don’t want to kill people, I’m already doing that at least to some degree.
That said, I think that you are being overly simplistic in your model of these people. Again I link to this page. Could you please explain, or link me to someone else who has, what makes you think that your model of their minds and motivations is more accurate than mine?
“Our word” is the map, not the territory.
In the realm of social interaction, the territory you’re navigating is made up of other people’s maps.
However, that also includes members of said minorities who belive that from their merely being members of such groups they have rights or sensibilities others don’t. They don’t.
I’m not sure what you mean here. They do have extra sensibilities, in the sense that they’re sensitive to things others aren’t: you aren’t hurt (or at least, not in the same way) by the words “nigger” or “queer”, whereas they are. They do have extra rights, in the sense that, if they clearly present as queer, they can be more confident about being transparent in their motivations and intentions for using the word, and so can expect to be able to use it in more social situations without repercussions.
So to me the issue is transparency. If I as a straight white male somehow could achieve the same level of transparency regarding my goals and intentions, I should be able to use such words just like black gays. My scheme allows for that; yours doesn’t.
I mostly agree with this. I see two problems with it. The first is that there are people who have had extremely negative experiences with the word in the past and thus hearing it from anyone, regardless of the intentions of the person saying it, would hurt them. But that’s mostly been addressed by your point about transparency, and the rest is addressed by:
ETA: would you yourself “use [“queer”] with carte blanche in all social situations”?
No, I would not, excellent point. My second issue is, if you don’t have any sort of nefarious intentions, what is motivating you to use the word, instead of another one? Are you in a rap battle for the fate of the universe and you absolutely must complete the rhyme “drank a beer, jigger of rum//man that queer nigger was dumb”?
*: At least in the way of the original haters
Keen observation.
Upon reading all of this conversation and thinking about this for several days, I have amended my policy to be more or less the same as yours. I now do not have a problem with people using those words if I, and everyone else present, has a very clear idea of what the person’s intentions are. Upon reflection I believe that this is the policy I was actually basing my reactions on, yet it was not the one I was vocalizing. I am now curious as to why I was vocalizing the policy I was. Perhaps to increase my status among the minority I’m a part of? Hmm. I’ll be thinking about this for a while.
....aaaand someone just walked by my room yelling “you’re a nigger! A double nigger!”
Interesting list. Minor typo: “This is where you get to study computing at it’s most theoretical,” the “it’s” should read “its”.